The Jersey Lawyer

In State v. Robinson, decided on July 22, 2009, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld as reasonable a police search where officers waited twenty to thirty seconds after announcing their presence before they knocked down the door to the defendant’s apartment to execute a search warrant.  Anyone who is the subject of a police investigation in New Jersey should contact a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer for assistance.

Defendant James Robinson was suspected of being a cocaine dealer.  In their affidavits in support of getting a search warrant, police officers alleged that they did two controlled buys of cocaine from defendant using undercover police officers and confidential informants.  Police were granted a warrant to search defendant’s apartment and to seize contraband.  The warrant specifically provided that law enforcement were to knock and announce their presence and purpose when executing the warrant. 

When executing the warrant, thirteen police officers converged on defendant’s apartment.  Officers knocked and announced their purpose, but did not receive any immediate response.  After waiting about twenty to thirty seconds, police forcibly entered defendant’s apartment and seized drugs, cash, a paper ledger and a scale.  As a result, defendant was arrested and indicted for third-degree distribution of cocaine, second-degree distribution of cocaine within 500 feet of a public housing facility, third-degree possession of cocaine, and third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.

Defendant moved to suppress the evidence on two separate grounds: (1) defendant alleged that there was insufficient probable cause for the warrant because some of the statements contained in the affidavit in support of the warrant were false; and (2) police had failed to knock and announce their presence when executing the warrant.  With respect to defendant’s first claim, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that there was probable cause and deferred to the trial court’s factual findings.  The second ground was the main subject of the Supreme Court’s opinion in this case.

Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States and Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, police are normally required to get a warrant before they may enter a citizen’s home and seize evidence.  The common law has added to the general warrant requirement a requirement that when police conduct a search of a citizen’s home, they must first knock on the door and announce their presence and purpose.  Some historians date this requirement all the way back to the time of the Magna Carta. 

However, the courts have carved several exceptions into the “knock and announce” rule.  For instance, police may dispense with the “knock and announce” rule where immediate action is required to preserve the evidence, the officer’s peril would be increase, or the arrest or seizure would be frustrated.  The Supreme Court then examined the issue of how long officers must wait after they knock and announce their presence before they can forcibly enter the premises.  The Court noted that police are governed by a reasonableness standard, that is, police must wait a reasonable time under the facts known to the police at the time of the search.  The Court also noted that in narcotics cases, the question of reasonableness does not stem from the amount of time it would take an occupant to answer the  door after the knock, but rather, from the amount of time it would take an occupant to destroy any narcotics that are present in the dwelling.  Other factors courts will consider are: a suspect’s violent criminal history; an informant’s tip that weapons will be present; the risks to officers’ lives or safety; the size or layout of the defendant’s property; whether persons other than the defendant reside at the property; whether others involved in the crime are expected to be present; and the time of day.

The Court then held that based on the totality of the circumstances in this case, and most importantly, the potential for destruction of evidence if entry was delayed any further, required the Court to find that there was sufficient credible evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that the 20 to 30 second delay between the police knocking and announcing their presence and the forcible entry into defendant’s home was reasonable. 

The Court refused to decide the question of whether the use of a “flash bang” device was reasonable on a technicality.  The Court argued that since defendant did not raise that issue to the trial court, he was not entitled to raise the issue on appeal.  Accordingly, the Court upheld defendant’s conviction and sentence on all four counts.  Anyone charged with a crime in New Jersey should contact a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer for assistance.